ppcfandomcom-20200215-history
Talk:Daisy
Department Okay, no. Unless someone said something in 5Ani that I missed - which is unlikely, since I'm the one who wrote the entire thing up - there is nothing that even hints at the Daisy being DIA. Can you please not make things up like that? Leave those decisions to people who want to use the characters. Huinesoron (talk) 06:38, July 24, 2013 (UTC) A few things do hint at it from its other appearances, though the bit about the hallways from the first playscript is rather circumstantial and can be interpreted differently than I did. I admit, though, I had expected its department assignment to be changed when I first posted that edit, since I wasn't around at the time of its creation and probably missed something on the Board about it. I had put in the Department of Internal Affairs connection largely because it would have been the only Flower without a departmental posting otherwise, and it clarifies at the bottom of the article that the posting as it stands is an approximation. If it isn't in the DIA, where does it work? As I said in my edit summary, if you want to say "No, it doesn't work in the ____, it actually works over there", that's your right as its creator. However, it's different to say "it possibly works in the ____, but it's never been stated directly" than to say "no it doesn't work in the ____, though it could be working anywhere else", since the latter would lead to questions as to why the ____ was excluded when taken out of context. Outhra (talk) 11:36, July 24, 2013 (UTC) Sorry, I sort of took Outhra's word for it and put it down as a "possibly?" while I fact-checked. It didn't look right but I kind of went "I'm bushed, I'll revert those edits in the morning." Ekyl (talk) 16:53, July 24, 2013 (UTC) It was only ever a "possibly". Nobody in the Playscripte ever actually said the Daisy's position directly, which is why I have that section at the bottom saying it wasn't confirmed. If I had said that it was confirmed, and it wasn't, I would have presumed too much, and doing so would have created its own set of problems. I'll try to steer away from deductive reasoning when making future edits to character pages. That seems to be causing nothing but trouble. Outhra (talk) 17:00, July 24, 2013 (UTC) Yeah, it's best if you stick to the facts and just the facts. This is simple: don't put stuff on the wiki if you can't back it up with conclusive proof, don't try to fill in blanks that are not yours to fill, and don't make assumptions. It is far, far better to leave things blank than it is to fill them with approximations and guesses. (Also, for whatever it's worth, I'd have pegged the Daisy as a member of Operations. Who should know HQ better than the department in charge of maintaining its structural integrity, cleanliness, and daily functions?) ~Neshomeh 18:16, July 24, 2013 (UTC)